China Digital Times (CDT) » Human Rightshttp://chinadigitaltimes.net
Covering China from CyberspaceSat, 01 Aug 2015 02:49:53 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.3China Digital Timeshttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/wp-content/themes/cdt/images/feedlogo.pnghttp://chinadigitaltimes.net
Beijing Wins Winter Olympics Despite Lack of Snow, Human Rights Protectionshttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/beijing-wins-winter-olympics-despite-lack-of-snow-human-rights-protections/
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/beijing-wins-winter-olympics-despite-lack-of-snow-human-rights-protections/#commentsSat, 01 Aug 2015 00:58:51 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=185755The International Olympic Committee (IOC) this morning announced that China won its $1.5 billion bid for the 2022 Winter Olympics, beating out Kazakhstan on a surprisingly narrow ballot. The AP reports that Beijing will become the first city to host both winter and summer games in the history of the Olympics, notes a voting mishap that roused some suspicion, and relays discontent from Kazakh representatives:

The Chinese capital was awarded the 2022 Winter Olympics on Friday, beating Kazakh rival Almaty 44-40 in a surprisingly close vote marred by technical problems, taking the games back to the city that hosted the summer version in 2008.

Beijing was seen by the International Olympic Committee as a secure, reliable choice that also offered vast commercial opportunities in a new winter sports market of more than 300 million people in northern China.

“It really is a safe choice,” IOC President Thomas Bach said. “We know China will deliver on its promises.”

The IOC’s secret vote was conducted by paper ballot, after the first electronic vote experienced technical faults with the voting tablets and was not counted. The result of the first vote was not disclosed. There was one abstention in the paper ballot.

Bach bristled when asked at a news conference about the possibility of any voting irregularities. […] [Source]

[…W]orrying is China’s ambition to stage the winter Olympics—and launch a winter sports industry—in an arid desert (Zhangjiakou is near the Gobi). Almost every winter Olympics venue uses artificial snow to supplement their own supply, and to ensure a plentiful supply of the best kind. But most have far more of their own to start with. Although China does have areas which are covered in the real stuff through the winter, but these lay further away from the capital, to the far north and northeast.

The government has already quashed the growth of golf, another sport whose high water demands were deeded excessive. But it now plans to spend nearly $90m on water-diversion schemes to satisfy Olympic demand. The country has already invested in giant diversion schemes to channel water hundreds of miles from the south to quench the thirst of the capital; groundwater supplies are being used up too.

Of greater concern to environmentalists than a two-week party in 2022 is the broader attempt to launch China’s own domestic ski industry. The sport is still very much in its infancy: on an average winter weekend most of the skiiers sliding down the fake snow at Zhangjiakou are beginners. It is also too expensive for most Chinese. Yet for months airports around the country, including in the balmy south, have been attempting to flog winter sports to Chinese consumers. It may also now persuade a few of them to practice rather hard. China not only needs to make some snow, it needs to make some gold-medal winners too. [Source]

The problem is that, despite some evidence that skiing may have originated in the Altai Mountains of Xinjiang province, China does not have a strong tradition of winter sports. South of the Huai River, which runs through the middle of the country, temperatures generally stay above freezing. Even Zhangjiakou, where many of the events will be hosted in 2022, sees only about three feet of snow every year. (The campaign for Almaty, Kazakhstan, Beijing’s rival for the Olympic bid, promised “real snow, real winter ambience.”) On a February day in Beijing, you’ll see more people walking on frozen lakes than skating. China’s performance at the Winter Olympics has improved since the nineteen-eighties, when it failed to win a single medal, but it doesn’t come close to matching its recent summertime dominance. The country won nine medals at the 2014 Games in Sochi, six of them in short-track speed skating, a relatively new Olympic sport at which China excels.

Winter sports are also a fancy form of recreation in China. To skate at the Ice and Joy rink in Chengdu costs seventy yuan, or twelve dollars, and a package of ten hockey or skating lessons costs about four hundred and sixty-four dollars. Playing on a hockey team drives the expense higher, with families typically spending as much as ten thousand dollars on equipment, travel, and fees. (The average Chinese person has an annual disposable income of about three thousand two hundred and fifty dollars.) One father I spoke with, Chen Cheng, estimated that he spends more than forty-eight thousand dollars a year on his eight-year-old son’s hockey career, including flights to Beijing every weekend to play in a more advanced league. […]

[…] To prove his commitment to winter sports, President Xi Jinping has done everything short of strapping himself into a snowboard and hitting the halfpipe. […] [Source]

“The IOC has sent the wrong message to the wrong people at the wrong time,” the International Tibet Network said in a statement. “China wants the world to ignore its deteriorating human rights and be impressed by Chinese can-do pragmatism instead. That’s exactly what the IOC has done. The honor of a second Olympic Games is a propaganda gift to China when what it needs is a slap in the face.”

[…] From New York, Human Rights Watch, which had also complained about human rights abuses by both Beijing and Kazakhstan ahead of the vote, said the IOC had “tripped on a major human rights hurdle.”

“The Olympic motto of ‘higher, faster, and stronger’ is a perfect description of the Chinese government’s assault on civil society: more peaceful activists detained in record time, subject to far harsher treatment,” said Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch.

[…] In Hong Kong, city legislator Albert Ho, a lawyer and founding member of Hong Kong-based China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, said the decision suggested “the IOC has lost the spirit of the Olympics.” […] [Source]

For Beijing the games would bring real development opportunities not just to resorts like Chongli, but to the wider province of Hubei that has always lagged behind the country’s capital.

[…] In fact, when asked about the other major area of concern surrounding Beijing’s bid – the issue of human rights – it is telling that the senior official put up to speak to the BBC begins her answer in terms of the economic and lifestyle benefits the games will bring.

[…] If rich cities with well-developed infrastructure like London and Boston can’t host the Olympics without breaking the bank, how can any place keep costs down?

The answer, it’s becoming clear, is that they can’t. Which is why the voters in rich, industrialized cities are exercising the right to say no to the Olympics. There is no shortage of autocratic rulers, though, who might be willing to spend the money they have squeezed from their people in order to experience the ego-boost of hosting the world’s biggest sporting event in their own back yard. Pyongyang 2028, anyone? [Source]

]]>http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/beijing-wins-winter-olympics-despite-lack-of-snow-human-rights-protections/feed/0Netizen Voices: Prisoners of Conscience Then and Nowhttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/netizen-voices-prisoners-of-conscience-then-and-now/
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/netizen-voices-prisoners-of-conscience-then-and-now/#commentsFri, 31 Jul 2015 22:11:26 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=185736A CCTV Weibo post about the 78th anniversary of the “Seven Gentlemen Incident” fell flat for netizens. The story of the Nationalist government’s release of seven political activists during World War II casts critical light on the mass detention and interrogation of rights defense lawyers and activists that began two weeks ago.

On July 15, 1936, the National Salvation Association issued a statement calling on the Nationalist government to end its fight with the Communists and instead join forces in the war against Japan. Seven key figures in the movement were arrested after a rally on November 23, 1936, and stood trial in Suzhou the following year. Sun Yat-sen’s wife Soong Ching-ling was among the participants in the movement to free the Seven Gentlemen, who were released on bail on July 31, 1937:

YangshiXinwen [CCTVNews] (@央视新闻): #70YearsofVictory Unwavering “Seven Gentlemen” Released from Prison: On July 31, 2015, the Nationalist government was forced to release the “Seven Gentlemen.” These seven were leaders of the National Salvation Association: Shen Junru, Zou Taofen, Li Gongpu, Sha Qianli, Shi Liang, Zhang Naiqi, and Wang Zaoshi. They were arrested for calling on the Nationalist government to cease the civil war. After they were released from prison, they continued their work in the National Salvation Movement of resistance to Japan. (July 31, 2015) [Chinese]

Netizens reminded CCTV of the glaring difference between this story and the unfolding saga of activists today, as well as the somber fate of some of the Seven Gentlemen under Mao—Zhang Naiqi held high-level posts from 1949 to 1957, when he was classified as a rightist. He was denounced in 1958 and beaten by Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution.

Namiting (@纳米霆): Are these people all lawyers? So many have been caught.

Gangtiebanwenrou (@钢铁般温柔): If they locked you up now, you’d never come out.

JiangZhiqing1973 (@蔣志清1973): Today, the Seven Gentlemen would unfortunately be johnned!

Ai Weiwei may not be able to attend his exhibition installation and opening at the Royal Academy of Arts in September 2015, due to the UK Visas and Immigration Department’s claim that Ai had submitted false information regarding his criminal records in his application for the UK business visa, and decision to issue a 20-day entry visa instead of the requested six-month business visit visa for London. In a letter, the department states that “It is a matter of public record that you have previously received a criminal conviction in China”, and in further conversations, referencing news about Ai’s secret detention by the Chinese authorities in 2011 and the tax case for Fake Design. Ai, who has never been charged or convicted of a crime, attempted to clarify this claim with the UK Visas and Immigration Department and the British Embassy in Beijing over several telephone conversations, but the representatives insisted on the accuracy of their sources and refused to admit any misjudgment. This decision is a denial of Ai Weiwei’s rights as an ordinary citizen, and a stand to take the position of those who caused sufferings for human rights defenders. [Source]

[… O]n this occasion your visa has been restricted to the requested dates of travel on your visa form, from 9th September 2015 to 29th September 2015. […]

[…] Exceptionally, it has been decided to grant you entry clearance outside the immigration Rules for your stated dates of travel to the UK.

While an exception has been made in this instance, any future application you submit must be completed as accurately as possible, otherwise there is a risk that future applications may be refused and a 10 year ban applied [….]” [Source]

Following Ai’s announcement, the embassy issued an identical statement to several newspapers, claiming that “all applications are considered on their individual merits and in line with the relevant legislation. Mr Ai has been granted a visa for the full duration of his requested dates of travel.” German authorities appear to have raised no objection when granting Ai a visa this week.

Liu Xiaoyuan, a human rights lawyer and friend of the outspoken artist, said he could not understand the “ridiculous” ruling.

“I don’t know which county’s understanding of criminal conviction the rejection is based on. If it’s the Chinese one Ai certainly does not have a conviction.”

“As a lawyer I don’t think Ai has a criminal conviction. Under Chinese law Ai’s case ended in the police investigation stage and has not reached the court. The case does not have a court sentence and hence by Chinese standard, Ai doesn’t have a criminal conviction.”

[…] Joshua Rosenzweig, a Hong Kong-based human rights expert who has followed Ai’s case, said he was also at a loss to explain the British decision. “If they are talking about what happened in 2011 then I just don’t see how this could qualify as a criminal conviction. It seems to me that either someone is misinformed or I don’t know what. You cannot call what happened in 2011 a criminal conviction.

“Being subjected to residential surveillance is not the same thing as a criminal conviction. It’s what the Chinese authorities call a coercive measure. You can’t have a conviction without facing a court – even in China.”

The immigration letter made clear that Ai’s request for a six-month business visa had been denied because of “a criminal conviction in China” that was a “matter of public record”, Rosenzweig noted.“I would like to know what the public record is because I pay attention to these things and it is not ringing any bells.” [Source]

Some people say, “Oh, but didn’t he have some tax troubles a while back?” And others respond, “Yes, but those were politically motivated.” All beside the point. To the second group, I say that he should respond truthfully and then explain, even if only as a practical matter, given that not telling the truth about things that really are in the public record is just not going to work. To the first group, I say that the ECM [Entry Clearance Manager] did not state an objection to Ai’s failures to mention (a) his 2011 detention, allegedly for investigation of tax issues, or (b) the assessment and fine levied as an administrative (not criminal) matter on his company (not him). The ECM’s objection was to Ai’s failure to state that he has a criminal conviction. But he doesn’t have one.

The ECM might have been on firmer ground had he or she said something along the lines of, “Really? No ‘caution, warning, or reprimand’? Ever?” I suspect Ai has received a lot of communications that would qualify. Of course they are politically motivated, but that’s what the place on the form for an explanation is for. But that’s not what the ECM said. [Source]

A third possibility is that the restriction was a deliberate move, with the apparent confusion over the supposed conviction merely a pretext. Human Rights Watch’s Maya Wang commented that:

[…] It is hard to escape the conclusion that this decision is political, linked to Chinese President Xi Jinping scheduled visit to the UK shortly thereafter.

[…] The UK welcomes scores of senior Chinese government officials – many of them implicated in human rights abuses. To deny comparable access to a peaceful critic of Chinese autocracy and repression, and do so on the basis of flawed Chinese judicial procedures, is inexcusable. [Source]

The embassy’s letter suggests that Ai had only intended to stay until September 29 in any case, but the restricted visa would guard against any change of plans. If it was indeed a deliberate ruse, British authorities might have accomplished the same end less provocatively by citing, for example, the Fake tax decision as an undisclosed court judgment, rather than an explosively concocted criminal conviction. As The Economist noted, “Mr Ai’s strange visa restriction may be completely unrelated. But it is a curious, and convenient, coincidence.”

[… E]ven as Ai set off, he remained, in many ways, stuck in place, locked in the same, strange purgatory he’s inhabited since his 81-day detention in 2011.

It’s a world where surveillance is constant and certainty is scarce.

He does not know why, for instance, after 600 days of protest, authorities restored his right to move around, or why the British government denied his request for a six-month visa on grounds that he failed to disclose a “criminal conviction,” when, under Chinese law, he has none.

Nor does he understand why Chinese authorities chose to loosen his leash while at the same time locking up other critics — lawyers, activists and artists — by the dozen. [Read more at CDT.] “We used to think that everything has a reason, or some history to it, but that’s not China,” he said in an interview at his Beijing studio on Tuesday.

“Freedom is a struggle, it’s continuous, and it’s a result we may never really get.” [Source]

As a condition for her release, Gao had been asked to confess her supposed guilt on television again but she refused, said her lawyer Shang Baojun, who visited her at a police detention centre in Beijing on Tuesday.

[…] A hospital check in recent weeks found there were signs of blockages in Gao Yu’s heart arteries and there were also signs that she had suffered a heart attack some time ago, although it could have happened before she was jailed, Shang said.

The medical check also found abnormal nymph node growth in her neck, although it was yet unclear whether the hard lumps on both sides of her neck were benign or malign. Shang said Gao was “very worried” over her deteriorating health conditions and said: “I don’t want to die here.”

[… Her brother Gao Wei] said she had also been asked to dismiss her lawyers – Shang and Mo Shaoping – but she also refused. [Source]

Zhao [Meng, Gao’s son] and Shang told CPJ that the Chinese government has been exerting pressure directly on the family and Gao’s lawyers. Beijing police today told her brother, Gao Wei, to stop speaking publicly about the case, one day after he spoke with the Hong Kong-based daily South China Morning Post, Zhao said. Police previously warned Gao Wei that if he continues to speak publicly, “This issue can get really big,” according to Zhao. “I am not sure what exactly that means, but they could arrest my uncle next. Isn’t that why I was detained for a month?” Zhao added, referring to how he was arrested alongside his mother in April 2014. Zhao, who was also suspected of leaking state secrets, was released on bail a month later without charge, according to reports.

Shang told CPJ that authorities have told him and Mo many times not to discuss the case with the international press. The most recent warning was last week, when officers from the Beijing Bureau of Justice and police visited Shang and Mo’s law firm in Beijing. When asked if he feels pressure over China’s crackdown on human rights lawyers [see background via CDT], Shang told CPJ: “If all lawyers get scared and decide to quit, who are going to defend people like Gao?” [Source]

]]>http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/gao-yu-confession-demanded-in-exchange-for-medical-release/feed/0Crackdown Shows Different Visions of Rule of Lawhttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/lawyer-crackdown-highlights-different-visions-of-rule-of-law/
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/lawyer-crackdown-highlights-different-visions-of-rule-of-law/#commentsWed, 29 Jul 2015 03:08:01 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=185607At least 228 people have now been detained or questioned in the “Black Friday” crackdown on Chinese rights lawyers. As of last Friday, according to Amnesty International, eight lawyers and four others remained in police custody, with five people under residential surveillance, and five others’ whereabouts unknown. (Biographies of many of them can be found at China Change, along with details of their current situations.)

China has written “effective respect and protection of human rights” together with “implementation of rule-of-law,” “law-respecting government” and “higher judicial credibility” into its targets to be hit by 2020, when the country is aiming to have built a moderately prosperous society.

[…] From this trail of moves, it is clear China upholds law-abiding petitions and lawyers’ rights in their lawful practices. The rationale behind the moves is that the rights of the accused can be better protected if lawyers who represent them enjoy guaranteed rights, and that petitioners’ human rights can be better protected if their grievances are heard and addressed.

[…] Putting [the detained lawyers] under investigation has nothing to do with jeopardizing human rights, but with clearing the way for the rule of law and effective legal protection of human rights. [Source]

In an op-ed at South China Morning Post, on the other hand, Zhou Zunyou of the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law wrote that state media have undermined the legality of the process by vilifying the detainees and broadcasting possibly forced confessions. He further argued that relevant aspects of China’s Criminal Procedure Law “are far from being compatible with […] minimum international standards,” and that the authorities do not appear to be adhering to it in any case:

If China truly wants to convince the world that this campaign is not “a human rights issue”, the prosecutors will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the apprehended lawyers have broken criminal law. For the time being, it is key for China, during the pretrial period, to adhere to its own criminal procedure law and show respect for widely recognised international standards of criminal justice.

However, the fact is, even before trials begin, the state media have pronounced these people guilty; since their detentions, none of the Fengrui [law firm] suspects have had any – let alone immediate and adequate – access to their own lawyers.

The conducting of a “trial by state media” prompted the criticism of He Weifang, a prominent law professor at Peking University, for violating the presumption of innocence, a central principle of criminal procedure as guaranteed by Article 12 of the Criminal Procedure Law. In one of his recent posts on Sina Weibo, a Twitter-style microblogging service, he pointed out that the state- and party-controlled media has the duty to abide by the law, and that taking sides by playing up and sensationalising the guilt of people before their trials begin would make it impossible for the court to adjudicate the case impartially.

[…] The irony of the crackdown is that the detained lawyers, whose job is to fight hard to help other people, are sitting in cells themselves without access to their own defence counsels. Even if the detained lawyers have committed crimes, the criminal proceedings against them must also be lawful, justified and in line with international standards. [Source]

Human Rights Watch’s Sophie Richardson warned last week that “detaining anyone incommunicado and in secret leaves them at high risk of torture or ill-treatment, especially when they are detained on politicized charges. Beijing’s blatant failure to guarantee even basic protections for these individuals demonstrates the government’s extraordinary disdain for rule of law.” In an essay on the crackdown translated at China Change, meanwhile, writer Zhai Minglei commented that the detainees’ treatment by the media “has transgressed a basic line of decency in ordinary society. It’s as if two people sat down to play chess and one of them knocked over the chessboard and then blamed his opponent for being a ruffian.”

On July 19, nine days after Wang Yu had been taken away by police, CCTV broadcast the tail end of an altercation in the Shenhe District Court, which made Wang Yu out to be the aggressor as she yelled out that the court was a “pack of scoundrels.” She can be seen pointing her finger, enraged, and at one point demands that the court transcriptionist record her words: “You are a pack of scoundrels!” She is then dragged away by bailiffs.

[…] But CCTV did not tell the real story of what happened in the courtroom on April 22. Not surprisingly, a fuller understanding of what took place reveals a rather different picture to the state portrayal of Wang Yu.

[…] First, defendant Li Dongxu (李东旭) objected to appearing by herself, rather than with her co-defendants Yu Ming (于溟) and Gao Jingqun (高敬群) per court procedure. She was silenced by the judge, but persisted. So the bailiffs rushed at her, shoving her back into her seat. She cried out, struggling through tears to speak, still being gripped fiercely by the bailiffs, before one of them kicked her chair over. Injured and in tears, she was removed from the room.

Lawyer Dong Qianyong (董前勇) then stood up and objected to the treatment, Dong describing the torture that Li had suffered in custody. He was pounced on by four bailiffs, pulled out of the room, pushed down, and put into a chokehold until he lost consciousness.

And this is when the CCTV footage began: Wang Yu shouting at the bailiffs for openly beating her client and colleague and removing them from the courtroom. [Source]

Bearded, bald and burly ex-soldier Wu Gan calls himself The Ultra Vulgar Butcher. He poses for online portraits brandishing knives in both hands that he says he’ll use to “slaughter the pigs” among local officials who’ve done wrong.

[…] Wu was arrested May 19 in the southeastern city of Nanchang. He had traveled there after defense lawyers were denied access to files in a case in which four men were serving prison time for a double murder despite a later confession from a fifth man.

Wu wanted to put pressure on the court’s chief judge, Zhang Zhonghou. In social media, Wu called Zhang a rogue and said he planned to hold a mock funeral for him, order white chrysanthemums for mourning and parade a statue of him around town.

[…] Zhang Weiyu, one of the lawyers representing the four men believed to have been wrongfully convicted, said they were hoping Wu’s activism would “prod the authorities into doing the right thing.”

[…] Zhang Weiyu said he does not think Wu’s acts were unlawful, although Wu did push the envelope.

“I really admired his courage, and I cautioned him to be more careful,” he recalled. “And he told me he did not believe he was doing anything wrong, and that he knew the boundaries.” [Source]

As the trial in Guangzhou resumed, large numbers of police officers were deployed around the courthouse and foreign diplomats were barred from entering the courtroom. On Thursday, a phalanx of plainclothes security agents brandished large, black umbrellas to obscure views of several of the defendants’ supporters being led away by the police, according to witnesses and photographs posted to Twitter.

One of the detained supporters, Ouyang Jinghua, 75, said by telephoneon Friday that the police had taken away about a dozen people on Thursday afternoon after checking their identification.

“We did nothing wrong,” said Mr. Ouyang, a retired official from the central province of Hunan who made the 14-hour journey to Guangzhou to show support for the defendants. “We decided on our own to attend the trial because someone has to be there.”

The supporters, he said, were brought to an empty school nearby and kept behind barricades while police officers and state security agents took statements. Mr. Ouyang said he was being forcibly sent back to his hometown by train, escorted by security officials.

[…] Mr. Ouyang said he was not afraid of political retaliation for his public support of the defendants. “I’m old,” he said. “I don’t really care if they sentence me to 20 years.” [Source]

Mr. Yu, the commercial lawyer who has embraced a perilous career as a rights activist, said his conversion began in October, when jail officials illegally barred him from seeing a client, a man being held on charges that he had supported the pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong.

Frustrated, Mr. Yu did something out of character: He staged a protest outside the detention center in a suburb of Beijing, took selfies and then posted them on WeChat, a messaging app.

Two days later, he was arrested. During three months in detention, most of it in a cell filled with death row inmates, he endured 17-hour interrogations and was subjected to physical abuse that left him with an abdominal hernia. He was not allowed to see a lawyer, nor was he formally charged.

[…] Many lawyers have scoffed at the government’s allegations against the rights lawyers, especially the claim that they were seeking riches in taking rights cases. Mr. Yu, the lawyer who was held incommunicado for three months, gestured at his threadbare office and said there was little financial reward in representing rights-defense clients, many of them poor.

“If you want to make money,” he said, “I’d suggest you stick to commercial work.” [Source]

Since 2003, China has seen the rise of a “rights defense”—weiquan—movement, in which all kinds of popular and often spontaneous advocacy by netizens, activists, lawyers, and online commentators responding to injustices could snowball into pressure on the government. While the authorities have grown less tolerant of this movement, there was always an invisible “red line” within which a certain level of dissent was tolerated.

But things changed when President Xi came to power two years ago. Under his leadership, authorities started to target some of the most innovative activists working within this red line. China imprisoned legal scholar Xu Zhiyong, whose long list of achievements included founding the Open Constitution Initiative and the New Citizens Movement. Authorities detained lawyer Pu Zhiqiang, whose social media savviness helped to abolish arbitrary detention camps. The government harassed the anti-discrimination civic group Yirenping, which pioneered public interests lawsuits. […]

The government’s current campaign is not about a single law firm or a handful of lawyers. It is about the discrediting of the very modus operandi of the rights defense movement. Collectively these trailblazing individuals and organizations have done the coal-face work, at great personal risk, to try making human rights a reality for ordinary people in China. With this massive lawyers sweep, we can bid farewell to one of the only vehicles to provide real relief to victims of human rights violations in China. [Source]

In the eyes of those in power, concessions in the area of rights would have only a minor effect on promoting the continued economic development upon which the legitimacy of their rule ultimately depends. But once the civil society that is now developing by leaps and bounds gains possession of these rights, it will significantly increase the capacity to coordinate and mobilize, civil society will achieve a much higher level of integration, and it will become much harder to curb progress toward political liberalization. For precisely these reasons, the rights defense movement—particularly rights defense activity in the area of civil and political rights—has become a focus of the authorities, something that must be vigorously suppressed.

Rights lawyers occupy a core position in the rights defense movement. They are direct participants in rights defense cases, and they also act to disseminate information about these cases and explain their significance. Rights lawyers thus play a pivotal role as bridges drawing links between specific cases and the wider social environment. Individual rights cases can take on broader legal and political significance and become part of the rights defense movement only through the efforts of rights defense lawyers. Of the “New Black Five Categories” described above, only rights defense lawyers work with all groups participating in rights defense actions, including petitioners, followers of underground religious, dissidents, and Internet leaders. Naturally, the authorities cannot overlook this important, central role played by rights defense lawyers. [Source]

As the detentions continue, veteran China watchers are debating what is behind this latest police action. Some say the Communist Party appears to feel increasingly vulnerable, and thus is jailing and intimidating even the mildest critics who might pose a threat to continued one-party rule.

[…] “We need to acknowledge the possibility of an alternative interpretation,” said Keith Hand, a specialist in Chinese legal reform at the University of California, Hastings College of Law. “It’s possible this is not a sign of fragility, but a sign that they feel very confident, both at home and on the international stage.”

[…] “They are in control, and they are further consolidating their control,” said Hand. “This is a party that systemically studies the past downfalls of communist regimes, particularly the fall of the Soviet Union, and learns lessons from them. That is something Xi Jinping has really emphasized since he came to power.”

[Eva Pils, a law specialist at King’s College London] however, says that are several signs of fragility within the party. Xi’s on-going anti-corruption crusade, while popular with the Chinese people, is taking on the signs of an internal “purge,” she said, and possibly creating some nervous party factions.

The anti-graft effort “clearly indicates a sense of vulnerability and at the same time, it has got to have the effect of increasing vulnerability,” Pils said in an email exchange. [Source]

[… Pils] argues that while some rights lawyers appear to be lowering their profile temporarily, she doesn’t think they will back down over the long term, especially as there is an ongoing effort to rally around those detained and provide mutual support.

“The human rights lawyers’ social media groups are very actively discussing what can be done.” said the King’s College researcher. For instance, when one lawyer is detained or harassed, others in the loose network will publicize the case and speak up on their behalf. Structurally speaking, she added, the authorities have to face the fact that these lawyers are organized in a myriad of ways with no clear hierarchies and that much of their communication and coordination is fluid and almost invisible.

Moreover, while only some 300 are willing to see themselves as human rights lawyers there are some 240,000 full-time licensed lawyers nationwide, and “some of them at least tend to take an interest in what happens to their colleagues,” said Pils. [Source]

China’s crackdown on human rights lawyers has prompted governments and bar organizations around the world to express concern and support for the detained Chinese attorneys. But China’s flourishing corporate bar—including the international firms active in China—has been relatively quiet.

[…] Why have global firms remained silent in comparison? In part, their reluctance to speak out underscores a stark divide in China’s legal community. According to one China-based U.S. lawyer, weiquan lawyers and commercial lawyers inhabit separate worlds that rarely interact.

[…] “These people are not likely to rock the boat,” says a China-based U.S. lawyer, adding that the market has become so competitive that law firms put a priority on maintaining good relationships with the government.

Some lawyers say there is private opposition to the crackdown. “Deep down inside most informed lawyers on the mainland do indeed care, including Chinese and foreign law firms,” says another China-based U.S. lawyer. “It’s the system that prevents them from being candid without the fear of retribution.” [Source]

]]>http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/lawyer-crackdown-highlights-different-visions-of-rule-of-law/feed/0Rights Advocates Oppose Beijing Winter Olympics Bidhttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/rights-advocates-oppose-beijings-2022-winter-olympics-bid/
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/rights-advocates-oppose-beijings-2022-winter-olympics-bid/#commentsTue, 28 Jul 2015 22:19:25 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=185603On Friday July 31, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) will meet in Kuala Lumpur to elect the host city for the 2022 Winter Olympics. Since Oslo withdrew its bid late last year, the contest has been between the capital cities of China and Kazakhstan. With the IOC decision looming, Beijing has launched its final promotional drive to shore up a successful bid. From Malaysia, the AFP reports the points of competition between Beijing and Almaty:

Beijing Olympic officials on Monday shrugged off questions over snow levels and spread-out venues in their 2022 Winter Games bid as they launched their final pitch in Malaysia ahead of an IOC vote this week.

[…]The Chinese capital is overwhelmingly favoured, but Almaty has gained ground by promising plentiful natural snow and concentration of facilities near the city.

But Beijing bid officials said the lack of snow in arid northern China and far-flung venues would not be a problem, while touting the organisational muscle that China flexed in its successful 2008 Summer Games.

[…] “We have two excellent candidates,” IOC president Thomas Bach said last week on a visit to Moscow. “The choice will not be easy.” [Source]

“Whether China or Kazakhstan wins the honor of hosting the 2022 Winter Games, the IOC will face an extreme test of its new commitment to improve human rights protections,” said Minky Worden, Global Initiatives director at Human Rights Watch. “The International Olympic Committee should insist that the host country rigorously comply with the Olympic Charter and basic human rights rules – or risk losing the right to host the games.”

[…] “The 2022 Winter Games are when the rubber meets the road for the IOC in terms of backing core principles,” Worden said. “Knowing that either way the selection process goes, a serious rights abuser will host the Games, the IOC should require meaningful rights protection in host city contracts, and monitor those commitments as rigorously as it monitors stadium construction, telecommunications, and other requirements.”

The IOC visited both countries earlier in 2015 to evaluate conditions as part of the bid process. But the official reports did not adequately identify the serious human rights concerns. […]

[…] “We’ve already seen one Olympic Games fuel human rights abuses in China, and the environment in 2015 is significantly worse than it was in 2008,” Worden said. [Source]

As we write this letter, the Chinese government is carrying out an unparalleled attack on civil society. More than 250 Chinese human-rights lawyers, legal assistants, activists and their family members have been arrested, interrogated, put under house arrest and made to disappear since July 9. The youngest is 16 and the oldest 81.

Beijing has been using the Olympic Games to promote the Chinese Communist Party. If the International Olympic Committee awards Beijing the 2022 Winter Olympics, a great event intended to promote solidarity, brotherhood and human development will once again serve a corrupt dictatorship. It will endorse a government that blatantly violates human rights. Awarding Beijing the Olympics is a contradiction of the Olympics’ goal of “promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.”

The 2008 Summer Olympics made a mockery of the fine principles that the Olympics stands for, and brought more humiliation than dignity and more sadness than joy to the people in China. […] [Source]

Handing the 2022 Winter Olympics to Beijing, which will go head-to-head with Kazakhstan’s capital Almaty in a vote for the hosting rights onJuly 31, would send out the wrong messages on human rights, as Beijing forges ahead with a widespread crackdown on rights lawyers, activists said.

“Lawyers are in a particularly difficult situation in China, where there are laws, but no rule of law, and where constitutionalism barely survives in the cracks,” said Hu, who served a three-and-a-half-year jail term for “incitement to subversion” after he wrote online articles critical of Beijing’s hosting of the 2008 Summer Olympics.

“Xi Jinping may preach the rule of law, but he is also its destroyer. There is nothing more ridiculous than this,” Hu told RFA ahead of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) meeting in Kuala Lumpur, which will vote to choose between the two rival cities. […] [Source]

In 2008, Golog Jigme said, he was detained and tortured after helping to produce a documentary, “Leaving Fear Behind,” that explored the mixed sentiments of ordinary Tibetans in the prelude to the 2008 Summer Games. The film’s co-producer, Dhondup Wangchen, was released last year after serving six years in prison on charges of subversion.

On July 17, Golog Jigme, now living in Switzerland, sent a letter to Mr. Bach asking if he could make his appeal face to face.

“I would very much like to show you the film in person so you can see for yourself how the Tibetan people suffer under Chinese rule, hear them speak about what they thought about the 2008 Games taking being given to China when the human rights situation for them is so awful,” he wrote in the letter, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times.

As of Monday, Mr. Bach, who also lives in Switzerland, had yet to respond. […] [Source]

If the IOC votes to award Beijing hosting rights on Friday, in 2022 the city is set to become the first to host both summer and winter Olympic games.

]]>http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/rights-advocates-oppose-beijings-2022-winter-olympics-bid/feed/0Film of the Week: “The Attorney”http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/film-of-the-week-the-attorney/
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/film-of-the-week-the-attorney/#commentsThu, 23 Jul 2015 19:23:47 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=185441The Word of the Week comes from the Grass-Mud Horse Lexicon, a glossary of terms created by Chinese netizens and encountered in online political discussions. These are the words of China’s online “resistance discourse,” used to mock and subvert the official language around censorship and political correctness.

South Korean film inspired by the life of former President Roh Moo-hyun, a tax attorney turned human rights lawyer; film invoked in support of Chinese human rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang.

Pu Zhiqiang is a former 1989 student protester and an outspoken, high-profile rights defense lawyer. He was detained along with several fellow activists on May 6, 2014 after attending a salon on the 1989 protests at the home of a friend. Actress Zhang Ziyi offered subtle support for Pu by encouraging her Weibo followers to watch “The Attorney,” the 2013 dramatization of Roh Moo-hyun’s defense of student protesters persecuted by the authoritarian South Korean government in the 1980s:

Xitubudui (@稀土部队): “The Attorney”: A lawyer who pursues democracy, rule of law, and justice fights for the truth and deeply inspires. The story is adapted from the real accomplishments of former South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun. No need to say more here, go see for yourself what it’s about! (May 6, 2014)

Roh was later elected president of the newly democratized South Korea in 2003. Roh’s life story resonates with Pu Zhiqiang’s, and also hints at a happier ending to Pu’s tribulations. Pu has remained in custody since May 2014, but was only formally indicted in May 2015. He has also been denied access to his lawyer since June 23, 2015.

Zhang Ziyi’s post inspired other Weibo users to invoke “The Attorney” as an allegory for Pu Zhiqiang’s fate. One particular quotation from the film is treated as sensitive and at times deleted from social media, as witnessed by this Weibo post removed by Sina:

DaoyuanqiaoqiaoJOJO (@导演乔乔JOJO): The hardest rock is still dead; the most fragile egg still holds life. In the end the rock will become dust, but the life nurtured in the egg will someday soar over the rock. (April 15, 2015)

Can’t get enough of subversive Chinese netspeak? Check out our latest ebook, “Decoding the Chinese Internet: A Glossary of Political Slang.” Includes dozens of new terms and classic catchphrases, presented in a new, image-rich format. Available for pay-what-you-want (including nothing). All proceeds support CDT.

“It is 7 month after our son has been declared innocent by court. Why these two officials who did my son wrong are still working?” Hu Ge’s mother Shang Aiyun said. “They should be held liable and go on trial for that.”

[…] Until 2005, a murderer named Zhao Zhihong confessed he was the one who killed the woman, cleared Hu Ge of the charge. It was then found that Hu Ge was possibly subject to police torture for confession.

[…] On June 24, 2015, Hu Ercha and Gong Jing were both appointed member of Hohhot Intermediate People’s Court Judicial Committee.

[…] Hohhot Intermediate People’s Court responded that this was the normal and procedural appointment. It did not necessarily suggest that the two officials were free from liabilities of their misjudgment. [Source]

Citing insufficient evidence, the Xiangtan Intermediate People’s Court in central China’s Hunan Province, overturned the guilty verdict against Zeng Aiyun, a former graduate student of engineering at Xiangtan University convicted in 2004 of murdering his classmate Zhou Yuheng.

Zeng had been sentenced to death three times by the same court. The Supreme People’s Court rejected the verdicts and ordered a retrial.

Chen Huazhang, also the victim’s classmate, was found to be the real killer. Chen poisoned Zhou with diazepam on Oct. 27, 2003 as he was jealous of the attention Zhou enjoyed from their mentor. Chen deliberately laid a false trail and imputed the murder to Zeng, who was in love with the victim’s ex-girlfriend. [Source]

]]>http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/judges-promoted-despite-death-sentence-misjudgment/feed/0Authorities Return Ai Weiwei’s Passport After Four Yearshttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/authorities-return-ai-weiweis-passport-after-four-years/
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/authorities-return-ai-weiweis-passport-after-four-years/#commentsWed, 22 Jul 2015 22:54:18 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=185384On Twitter and Instagram, Ai Weiwei today announced that authorities had finally returned his passport. The outspoken artist has been forbidden from overseas travel for over four years, since he was detained at the Beijing airport while attempting to fly to Hong Kong in April 2011, and subsequently detained for 81 days. The Guardian’s Tom Phillips reports on Ai’s initial reaction, and a mixture of celebration and realism from his supporters:

“When I got it back I felt my heart was at peace,” the artist told the Guardian on Wednesday afternoon, just hours after police handed him back the travel document and informed him he was free to go overseas.

“I feel pleased. This was something that needed to be done,” added Ai, who has long been a vocal critic of China’s leaders. “I was quite frustrated when my right to travel was taken away but now I feel much more positive about my condition.

[…] Ai said his first trip would be to Germany, where his six-year-old son has been living since last year.

[…] Others reacted more cautiously. “Congratulations Mr Ai Weiwei on getting your passport back. But having a passport doesn’t mean you can get out of China freely,” Liu Xiaoyuan, a prominent human rights lawyer, wrote on Twitter. […] [Source]

Mr. Ai, who was a design consultant on the Bird’s Nest stadium in Beijing and exhibited his sculptural installation “Sunflower Seeds” at the Tate Modern in London, was detained in 2011 while trying to fly to Hong Kong from Beijing. He was held and interrogated for 81 days and later prosecuted on a charge of tax evasion. A court ruled against him and said his studio owed $2.4 million in penalties and back taxes.

He has said the case against him was retaliation for his political activism, including his memorializing the thousands of children who died in schools that collapsed during a 2008 earthquake in Sichuan Province.

[…] Mr. Ai also turned his years without a passport into an art project, filling the basket of his bicycle, which was locked outside his studio in the Caochangdi district of Beijing, with flowers each morning. He posted the photographs online, and then reposted images of flowers that supporters had directed to him. He noted that Wednesday was his 600th day of placing flowers since he began the project in 2013. [Source]

Ai Weiwei has regained his passport from the Chinese government and will be travelling to London for his landmark exhibition in September, it was confirmed today.

[…] Today’s news comes just eight weeks before the opening of a major exhibition for the artist at the Royal Academy – one that the artist has been planning remotely from his Beijing studio with the show’s curators, Adrian Locke and Artistic Director of the Royal Academy, Tim Marlow.

Tim Marlow said: “Ai Weiwei has just received his passport from the Chinese authorities and is now free to travel outside of China. This is wonderful news for Ai Weiwei, his family and for artists worldwide. We are delighted to announce that he will be joining us as we finalise the installation of his exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts, London. The exhibition opens on 19th September and will be the first major institutional presentation of his work in the UK.” [Source]

Meng Qun, wife of Pu Zhiqiang, raised the concern in an open letter addressed to the leadership of the Beijing detention center where her husband is being held, urging authorities to honor China’s own rules to allow Pu access to lawyers.

[…] [Pu’s attorney Shang Baojun, who verified the authenticity of Meng’s letter…] said he expects a Beijing court to hold Pu’s trial soon, because by law Chinese courts have three months from the indictment to hold a trial and issue a verdict, but the authorities have not yet announced a date.

In her open letter, Meng said that Pu is entitled to meet his lawyers after the indictment but that the lawyers have been asked — contrary to China’s own rules — to submit a meeting request.

Even after the lawyers put in a meeting request, the detention center has failed to accommodate a meeting within 48 hours, as stipulated by China’s rules, Meng said. […] [Source]

Zhou Shifeng and some of his associates at the Beijing Fengrui law firm—known for taking on politically sensitive cases—have admitted to wrongdoing ranging from hyping up legal cases to spreading smears against China’s legal system, according to a report published Saturday by the state-run Xinhua News Agency and the Communist Party mouthpiece, People’s Daily.

[…] “The law firm has indeed broken the law, this is without doubt,” Mr. Zhou, Fengrui’s director, was quoted as saying by Xinhua and People’s Daily. “There were indeed specific instances of illegality and criminality, and the errors were fairly serious.”

[…] Rights groups criticized the Xinhua and People’s Daily reports for presenting what appeared to be a definitive conclusion on the case before the completion of legal proceedings. Such pretrial airing of confessions have become an increasingly favored tactic for Chinese authorities seeking to shape public opinion on politically sensitive cases, despite Mr. Xi’s purported campaign to promote rule of law.

“The whole tone of the state-media reports presents the case against the alleged ‘criminal gang’ as established fact, rather than allowing a fair and impartial court process to decide this,” said William Nee, China researcher at Amnesty International. “The confessions that they’ve obtained seem like they are fitting the government’s preapproved narrative.” [Source]

Meanwhile, suspect Liu Sixin, a firm assistant with a law PhD, revealed that he wrote and prepared basically all documents needed for a hearing and Zhou only read verbatim at court, describing Zhou’s work as “very unprofessional.”

[…] “Wang Yu enjoyed quite a reputation in the lawyer industry. Although she earned it mostly from shrewish quarrels and public exposure, it was an indisputable fact that everybody knew her,” Zhou said.

[…] “Our acts were not compatible with a normal lawyer. Whether practicing the law or being a citizen, no matter what problems emerge, we should always resort to legal channels to solve them,” Liu said.

Liu added that “savage acts” can only become negative factors in the country’s rule of law and might also be taken advantage by foreign malicious forces. [Source]

“Lawyers are supposed to safeguard the law,” said Wang Jinxi, a law professor with China University of Political Science and Law. “Being a lawyer does not mean they can break the law, and no country allows people to carry out criminal activities just because they are lawyers,” Wang said.

Wang said some Western politicians and media outlets that described the police actions as “cracking down on rights defenders” were ignoring the facts.

[…] Camera recordings for a court hearing in the northeastern city of Shenyang in April showed several defense lawyers affiliated with the firm shouting and screaming shortly after the trial opened, despite judges’ calls for order.

They hurled insults at judges and later targeted police trying to interfere, with the firm’s lawyer Wang Yu pointing fingers and calling them “hooligans.” The trial was forced to a halt. [Source]

She was a mild-mannered commercial lawyer working on patent disputes and the like until an incident at a train station in Tianjin at the end of 2008. She had an altercation with station employees after they stopped her from getting on a train, even though she had a ticket, and was then assaulted by several men.

But several months later, it was Wang — not the men who beat her — who was charged with “intentional assault.” After a lengthy and questionable legal process, she spent 21/2 years in jail.

There, she saw how prisoners were forced to work for no pay and heard their tales of being mistreated and tortured, her friends and associates say. When she emerged in 2011, Wang had transformed into a human rights advocate, taking on some of the most high-profile cases in China.

[…] Last month, the state-run Xinhua News Agency ran an unsigned commentary about Wang that was apparently designed to smear her reputation. “This arrogant woman with a criminal record turned overnight to a lawyer, blabbering about the rule of law, human rights, and justice, and roaming around under the flag of ‘rights defense,’ ” it said.

[…] Maya Wang of Human Rights Watch said the detained attorney is no firebrand. “She’s softly spoken and she’s very serious about her work,” she said. “First and foremost, she’s a lawyer. The entire crackdown on her and her law firm is a political crackdown against lawyers who are just trying to do their jobs in implementing the rule of law.” [Source]

According to official accounts, the lawyers and their co-conspirators were motivated by the desire for fame and wealth. In an op-ed at The Washington Post, though, Harvard-based rights lawyer Teng Biao argued that the latter rationale makes little sense, especially given the hardships that rights work can incur:

If they chose, these professionals could reap a substantial salary doing other sorts of legal work — but their belief in the rule of law and liberty and their sense of responsibility leads them to this path. It is one beset by thorns, but it is also full of honor. They win the love and respect of ordinary people and they accumulate social influence. Working together in the battle for human rights, through the relentless persecution, they have formed deep friendships. Using social media, they have brought together an informal organization that can be rapidly mobilized. Every time there’s a serious legal incident, hundreds of them take steps to publicize the matter, mobilize citizens to make their voices heard and, when necessary, dispatch lawyers to take up the case.

[…] The arrests of the past week mark an important historical moment in China’s legal profession. It’s likely that, just as in the past, those who were disappeared are being tortured. But this crackdown won’t silence the rights lawyers, and it won’t stop the march toward human rights and dignity in China. Rights lawyers will rise from the ashes with an even deeper sense of their historical responsibility. [Source]

Western critics are all steamed up after Chinese police authorities announced Wednesday the apprehension of a group of lawyers, social media celebrities and petitioners alike for allegedly disrupting public order and seeking profits by illegally organizing paid protests and swaying court decisions in the name of “defending justice and public interests.”

Lawyers should never have to suffer prosecution or any other kind of sanctions or intimidation for “discharging their professional duties,” some claimed. Others blame the “ferocity” of the attack against rights lawyers.

Few, however, seem to bother whether the “discharging of professional duties” by the arrested lawyers, many of whom belong to the Beijing-based Fengrui Law Firm, was in line with Chinese laws.

[…] If the confessions are true, their actions would hardly win any sympathy in a law-based society, let alone support for their release.

[…] Critics should first get the facts right, get to the bottom of the problem before embarrassing themselves in another unavailing episode of finger-pointing, because after all, the arrest of lawless lawyers is nothing more than a legal issue. [Source]

During the 2011 “Jasmine” period, I was seized and locked up for 70 days. I was tortured, and then videotaped. So don’t be too critical of those who confessed on CCTV. It’s very possible that they were forced into it with torture or other extreme pressure. […] [Chinese]

[…] Last month police in the Shandong province busted a group alleged to have organized massive protests to influence a court sentence. “I deeply regret my wrongdoings,” said just-detained lawyer Liu Jianjun in a CCTV broadcast (link in Chinese).

Liu had served in the case that drew the protests. One of his defenders told Radio Free Asia (link in Chinese) that Liu was tricked into the interview by a police officer who’d promised to not identify him or show his face on TV. Liu was not admitting his guilt, the defender explained, but apologizing for traffic congestion at the protest site. [Source]

A total of 270,000 lawyers across the country play an important role in the process of justice and improving judicial credibility, according to the Supreme People’s Court.

The top court required in a guideline it issued this year that all courts must respect attorneys and listen to their defense opinions carefully.

The guideline also stipulates that lawyers’ rights, including making inquiries and debating a case in a hearing, must be fully protected, and courts cannot make discriminatory security checks on them.

[…] “A lawyer is a necessity in a case, whether it is criminal, administrative, civil or commercial. If we don’t attach importance to the lawyer’s role, the legal community will not be balanced,” said Sheng Leiming, director of the All China Lawyers Association.

He compared the lawyer, prosecutor and judge to a triangle, saying it will keep stable and firm only when each role is improved to the same level. [Source]

Yang confirmed on Thursday that he had written the letter, but said he had not made it public. He declined to comment further.

[…] Yang’s letter said administration’s demands that articles related to 15 topics must be submitted and approved before publication made it impossible for Yanhuang Chunqiu and similar journals to function.

[…] Yang argued that the magazine had already censored itself for a decade, pledging to the authorities it would not to touch upon eight “sensitive” areas: multiparty democracy, separation of powers, stories on party leaders and their families, Tibet and Xinjiang pro-independence rhetoric, the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown and religious issues.

“Please leave the popular Yanhuang Chunqiu a little bit of space to survive,” he said at the end of his letter.

In another letter to the magazine’s editorial board and readers, Yang wrote: “Times are changing. Maybe one day, under our opponents’ pressure, Yanhuang Chunqiu may have no choice but to perish.

Yet publisher Du Daozheng, 91, who has taken on Yang’s role since his departure, vowed the magazine would keep going. [Source]

The Communist Party’s man in charge of propaganda in Guangdong when two of the biggest media crises in recent years rattled the province has been promoted to deputy head of the Central Publicity Department.

Tuo Zhen, 55, made his first public appearance in his new role at a workshop on children’s literature in Beijing last week, according to the China Writers Association, which hosted the event. The promotion takes him a step higher in official status to ministerial level, a reward for tightening the reins on the province’s liberal media, according to one observer.

[…] Commenting on the promotion, a former journalist from the Nanfang Media Group, which owns the Weekly, said: “We fear the tight grip on Guangdong media will be extended nationwide from now on.”

“As soon as he landed in Guangdong, we felt the pressure immediately.” [Source]

Guangzhou-based independent writer Ye Du said Tuo was once a respected journalist, but had since taken to supporting an ongoing nationwide clampdown on freedom of expression under the administration of President Xi Jinping.

“His entire ideology seems to have changed,” Ye said. “You could say that the Southern Weekend incident was the starting point of this change.”

[…] According to veteran Hebei-based reporter Zhu Xinxin, Tuo’s new job will send a clear message to China’s already tightly controlled media that the government will continue to keep up the pressure on the industry.

“The space for expression just got smaller, because if somebody like Tuo Zhen has been appointed to such an important post … then there is less and less hope for this country,” Zhu said. [Source]

]]>http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/yang-jisheng-lashes-out-at-censors-tuo-zhen-promoted-to-national-propaganda-post/feed/0Lu Jun: “One More Law Won’t Make Us Helpless”http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/lu-jun-one-more-law-wont-make-us-helpless/
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/lu-jun-one-more-law-wont-make-us-helpless/#commentsFri, 17 Jul 2015 04:23:55 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=185040In 2006, Lu Jun co-founded the Beijing Yirenping Center as an organization to advocate against discrimination of people carrying Hepatitis B and other communicable diseases. The group has since grown to become one of China’s largest and most respected NGOs dealing with public health and rights issues. As Xi Jinping’s government tries to rein in China’s civil society, Yirenping has been repeatedly targeted: several of the women activists detained in March had worked with the group, the group’s Beijing offices were raided during their detention, and two former staff members of Zhengzhou Yirenping Center have been detained (and since released). In April, the Foreign Ministry announced that Yirenping would be investigated for illegal activity, but did not clarify what activity that was.

China Digital Times: Can you tell us about the background of Yirenping? Why did you first start the organization? What did you hope to achieve? Would you say that so far the organization has been successful in achieving or working towards achieving those goals?

Lu Jun: Yirenping was registered in December 2006 as China’s first NGO with an “anti-discrimination” mission. At that time, I had already been doing volunteer work to fight discrimination against Hepatitis B [carriers] for three years. I came to feel strongly that this kind of anti-discrimination work is very important for vulnerable groups, but at that time there weren’t any domestic groups specifically working in this field. Three friends and I all felt that China needed an organization specializing in anti-discrimination work, so we registered the Beijing Yirenping Center to focus on anti-discrimination, as well as public health and other human rights issues.

At the time that we registered, we expected to push forward the elimination of institutional discrimination against China’s nearly 100 million Hepatitis B carriers, as well as discrimination against those with HIV and others within the realm of public health.

Through a great amount of effort from 2007 to 2009, we together with members of the community successfully pushed official legislative and administrative bodies to eliminate institutional discrimination against Hepatitis B carriers. Twenty pieces of legislation were modified and many new laws were passed. This meant that the nearly 100 million Hepatitis B carriers no longer faced discrimination in employment or education. Suicide and revenge killings by Hepatitis B carriers and other phenomena that occurred frequently in the past were greatly reduced. My colleagues and I all felt our work was very successful, and China’s NGO and legal communities generally feel the same.

CDT: From the beginning, what has Yirenping’s relationship with the authorities been like? Did you face any difficulties in registering the group? The organization is registered as a business, not as a non-profit. Could you explain why you and your co-founders chose that route? In what ways has that benefited or hindered your work?

LJ: Before 2014, our relationship with the government was better than we had first expected. At the time, domestics AIDS rights and advocacy organizations were frequently harassed by authorities, and their meetings and trainings were shut down and their leaders were “disappeared.” After Yirenping was founded, even though we received “attention” from several different government departments and different levels of police, until summer 2014 our meetings and trainings had never been shut down, and our staff had never been “disappeared” or detained. Moreover, police at all levels had never accused Yirenping of violating the law and generally agreed that Yirenping’s work was meaningful.

We asked the police and the Civil Affairs Department if we could register as a social organization or a private non-enterprise organization, but the answer was always no. In recent years, although the Civil Affairs Department has broadened the registrations of “private non-enterprise” organizations, this broadening does not apply to legal rights defense or policy advocacy groups.

As for the differences between registering as a company or as a civil organization, I actually am not too clear myself, because I don’t understand the civil administration registration of organizations. The following are some areas where registration as a company may be less advantageous than registering as a civil organization:

When government departments buy services from NGOs, they often require the NGO to be registered as a civil organization.

The are strict restrictions on receiving foreign currency.

We cannot apply for tax exemptions.

CDT: I have read that over the years Yirenping has had trouble accessing donations from foreign groups due to regulations that prohibit overseas contributions. Yet much of your fundraising must by necessity come from overseas. How have you worked around these regulations?

LJ: In 2010, the central government imposed a new regulation strictly limiting the acceptance of foreign currency. But Chinese NGOs found another method which requires them to pay additional taxes to the government, at a rate of three to five and a half percent.

CDT: How much of your fundraising comes from within China? Has that number grown at all in recent years?

LJ: Less than ten percent of our funds come from within China. In recent years, the number has not grown, but has in fact decreased. The most important reason is that as our work has gotten positive results, our international reputation has grown and more international programs cooperate with us.

CDT: With the detention of the so-called Feminist Five in March 2015, there was speculation that those five feminist activists had been targeted because they had some connection with Yirenping. During their detention, Yirenping offices were raided, and two more activists associated with the group have since been detained. Do you believe Yirenping is being singled out by authorities, and if so, why?

LJ: The real reason for the detention of the five feminist activists is still unclear. Maybe it is that they wanted to strike Yirenping, but not necessarily, since two of the detained women had not worked with Yirenping before.

I believe that Yirenping is not the only target of the official crackdown on NGOs, as other NGOs have also been suppressed:

In January 2015, a British national linked to an international nonprofit was forced to leave China due to visa issues that were raised by the police. According to media reports from March 2015, a French national connected to Chinese civil groups was detained for ten days for similar reasons, and then also forced to leave China.

In addition, the drafting of the Foreign NGO Management Law shows more clearly that the official crackdown on NGOs is holistic. Yirenping is a relatively large and well-established legal rights defense and policy advocacy NGO, so it is not unusual that we are being suppressed.

CDT: We have been hearing a lot in the international press about a “crackdown” on civil society in China under Xi Jinping, and many people in China and abroad have raised grave concerns over the draft foreign NGO management law. Yet just a year ago, the Economist ran an article about how despite the political clampdown, civil society groups in China are “flourishing” while also being subjected to inconsistent and unpredictable treatment by authorities. How would you evaluate the status of civil society in China today? How has the sector as a whole changed since you first started Yirenping in 2006?

LJ: One year ago, I was relatively optimistic about the plight of Chinese NGOs, because the social contradictions in China were too sharp, the number of rights activists was increasing, and many people were more “sensitive” than NGOs. So the degree of sensitivity of NGOs was decreasing. In the spring of 2011, during the North African and Middle East “Jasmine Revolutions,” several hundred rights lawyers and activists “disappeared,” but none of them were NGO workers, which showed that authorities did not consider NGOs a “revolutionary” threat. For the next three years, the official pressure on NGOs was clearly less than before 2011.

The situation began to change in the summer of 2014, starting with pressure on the Zhengzhou Yirenping Center. The situation has continued to develop to today, when we can see that the government’s attitude toward NGOs has become much more hostile than it was between 2011 and 2013. The level of hostility far surpasses that of a decade ago during the “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and it also surpasses the period during the 2008 Olympics and the 2009 60th anniversary of the founding of the PRC, and even more so the period when Yirenping was founded in 2006 and 2007. Many people in the NGO community think that this hostility is in following with Russia.

LJ: The suggestions received on the draft of the law seem to have gone far beyond the scope imagined by the drafters (the Public Security Bureau) and reviewers (the National People’s Congress Standing Committee). From reading the comments and suggestions that have been made public, if the current draft is ratified, it will greatly damage international cooperation with China as well as the policy of “opening” to the world.

CDT: If the Foreign NGO Management Law passes as currently drafted, what would you expect the impact to be on Yirenping and other similar groups?

LJ: The influence on Yirenping and other rights advocacy groups would not be too big, because these groups have already long been subject to strict monitoring from the public security, state security, and civil affairs bureaus, and the space for their activities is already very limited. In addition, they have ceaselessly been subjected to all methods of search, investigation, and penalties from the taxation, industry and commerce, and public security departments. Adding one more law would be a drop in the ocean.

The environment for Chinese NGOs was never the same as in countries like Russia, Egypt, or India. Those countries all have multi-party political systems, and political parties have the freedom to organize. “Freedom of association” receives widespread attention, and civil organizations have considerable space. Compared to those international NGOs, the restrictions that Chinese rights defense and advocacy NGOs have faced for so long are much harsher. One more law will not make us helpless.

CDT: I know it is early yet, but what is your initial reaction about why the government took the action last week of detaining more than one hundred lawyers and activists, on so-called “Black Friday”? And what do you think the government’s motivation or desired outcome is?
LJ: My point of view is, the direct reason for the police’s action could be the police shooting case in Qing’an.

Wu Gan posted a video on social media which was quite different from CCTV’s video of the shooting, and then he was detained. Wang Yu went to the detention center to see Wu Gan and posted about police harassment and obstacles to the visit, and then Wang Yu disappeared together with her husband and 16 year-old son. Both Wu Gan and Wang Yu work for Zhou Shifeng’s law firm, so Zhou Shifeng was detained afterwards, together with some other lawyers from the law firm.

More than 100 lawyers posted a petition against Wang Yu’s disappearance, and then police launched an action to round up more than 100 lawyers.

]]>http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/lu-jun-one-more-law-wont-make-us-helpless/feed/0“Xinjiang Terrorists” Shot Dead by Police in Shenyanghttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/xinjiang-terrorists-shot-dead-by-police-in-shenyang/
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/xinjiang-terrorists-shot-dead-by-police-in-shenyang/#commentsThu, 16 Jul 2015 00:41:15 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=184908The BBC reports that three men allegedly armed with knives were shot dead and another woman injured in a raid in the eastern city of Shenyangon July 13. Sixteen others, referred to as “terror suspects,” were detained, as was a 28-year-old Uyghur woman and three children:

During the raid, officers entered a rented apartment where they “discovered Xinjiang terrorist suspects” and were attacked by four people “wearing headgear, holding long knives, and shouting ‘holy war’ slogans,” the statement [by the Liaoning government and reproduced by state media] said.

Police then retreated and called for back-up. More than 200 officers, including an anti-terrorist unit, evacuated nearby residents and surrounded the building. A cherry picker was used to reach the seventh-floor apartment.

[…] Police then retreated and called for back-up. More than 200 officers, including an anti-terrorist unit, evacuated nearby residents and surrounded the building. A cherry picker was used to reach the seventh-floor apartment.

Pictures of the raid posted on a Weibo account owned by state broadcaster CCTV showed armed, uniformed men stationed on a rooftop and in a cherry picker cabin. [Source]

At least four Chinese media outlets—a state-run news agency and three commercial newspapers—published reports late Monday saying police in the northeastern city of Shenyang had shot dead three “Xinjiang terrorists” and wounded a fourth during a counterterrorism sweep in the city, which is the capital of Liaoning province. They cited a purported Shenyang police statement, images of which were posted on a verified microblog account run by provincial propaganda officials.

But many Web-based versions of these news reports, which also appeared in print, became inaccessible by midday Tuesday, while the original microblog post was nowhere to be found.

[…] This statement and its contents were reported by the state-run China News Service, as well as three leading commercial newspapers—Beijing News, Beijing Youth Daily and Shanghai-based The Paper. A person at Beijing News said censors had requested the newspaper to remove its online report that cited the police statement. However, copies of these reports reproduced by other online news outlets remained available as of Tuesday afternoon. [Source]

Dilxat Raxit, spokesman for the Munich-based World Uyghur Congress, which advocates Uighur rights, said that according to local sources, the suspects shot Monday were among dozens of Uighurs who had been rounded up and arrested as they were trying to flee abroad through China’s northern border.

“China shot dead those who resisted,” he said. “China’s barbarian policy of shooting people dead before judicial interrogation should be prevented by the international community.” [Source]

Citing the Ministry of Public Security, China’s official Xinhua News Agency said on Saturday the 109 Chinese “illegal immigrants” had been on their way “to join jihad” in Turkey, Syria or Iraq, and that 13 of them had fled China after being implicated in terrorist activities. Another two had escaped detention, the report said.

Another spokesman for the group, Dilxat Raxit, said China was “shirking responsibility for Uighurs fleeing because of its policy of suppression”.

[…] Sunai Phasuk, a Thailand-based researcher at Human Rights Watch, told Reuters the Uighurs could face serious abuses in China, including torture and disappearance. The World Uighur Congress says many in the group, which includes 20 women, could even face execution.

[…] “We have very serious concerns of torture, unfair trial, deaths in custody and even the death sentence, but once they’re sent back there’s really no way to track their progress,” [William Nee, Amnesty International’s Hong Kong-based China researcher] said. [Source]

Thailand’s repatriation of over 100 illegal immigrants back to China is nothing but a legitimate and necessary law-enforcement cooperation mission in agreement between the two countries, and should not be interpreted as an ethnic or religious issue.

Some foreign governments have made unwarranted accusations on the matter, which can only be deemed as another unavailing episode of their long-time finger-pointing tactics to interfere in China’s internal affairs and disrupt China’s security and stability.

When getting to the bottom of such empty rhetoric, one will find that this issue is simply about a routine law-enforcement cooperation mission in agreement between Thailand and China.

To begin with, those repatriated Chinese citizens are not “refugees” of any political or religious oppression. They are illegal immigrants holding counterfeit passports in violation of laws of both China and Thailand. […] [Source]

“Terrorist extremists from within China’s borders are recruited to illegally exit the country. Through Southeast Asian countries they go to Turkey and from there head to the so-called holy wars in Syria and Iraq, receive terrorist training and bide their time to return,” the ministry said in a statement sent to Reuters.

“This not only seriously damages China’s national security, but also is a threat to the security and stability of other relevant countries and regions,” it said.

[…] In March, Xinjiang’s Communist Party chief Zhang Chunxian said that authorities had busted “extremists” that had returned from overseas wars, but authorities have offered little evidence to support their claims.

Many foreign experts, as well as rights groups and exiles, have questioned whether ETIM exists as the coherent group China claims it is. [Source]

[…A]s security at transport hubs like train and bus stations in Xinjiang has been increased, Uighurs are Chinese citizens and have the right to travel anywhere in the country.

Tong said Uighurs, who speak a Turkic language, were using that right to get to border areas.

“You can’t just stop them because they are from Xinjiang or are Uighur. You can’t tell from their faces if they are terrorists.”

Tong’s remarks underscore the intelligence challenge China faces in Xinjiang, where government officials generally do not speak Uighur and where many Uighurs harbour an intense suspicion of the state. […] [Source]

[…] The report documents cases where residents of areas with slow-track processing who were members of religious minorities faced delays of up to five years in getting a passport or were refused a passport outright, without being given any legally recognized reason […] [Source]

]]>http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/xinjiang-terrorists-shot-dead-by-police-in-shenyang/feed/0Translation: Wang Yi’s Ode to Black Friday Lawyershttp://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/translation-wang-yis-ode-to-black-friday-lawyers/
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2015/07/translation-wang-yis-ode-to-black-friday-lawyers/#commentsWed, 15 Jul 2015 20:36:57 +0000http://chinadigitaltimes.net/?p=184900Wang Yi, the pastor of the Early Rain Reformed Church in Chengdu, has written a poem about the lawyers and activists he has known who have served prison terms for their work. Spurred by the recent questioning and detention of over 100 lawyers and activists, Wang recalls passing acquaintances and fierce friendships alike. Wang’s faith urges his friends and himself to continue their rights defense work, despite the increasingly dire consequences.

Oh, I Have So Many Friends

Liu Xiaobo is my friend
I have nothing more to sayGao Zhisheng is my friend, too
Though the times we’ve met are fewXu Zhiyong is my friend
He’s come to my home, and listened to me preachChen Yunfei is my friend
Even on summer break
His daughter is used to daddy not being at home

Liu Xianbin is my brother
He preached the Gospel to a thief in prison
I haven’t seen his wife for some timeLi Huaping is my brother, he weighs about the same as me
Of course I mean before he went to prisonTang Jingling is my brother
I first met him in Guangzhou, he was wearing straw sandalsChen Wei is my brother, too
We’ve only had a meal together, but because he was kind
He put up with me and listened to me preach

Li Heping is a dear brother
Some years ago, I’d go to him whenever things went wrongLi Fangping is a dear brother, too, his name one character different from Heping’s
Elder Hu Shigen is a dear friend, too
We met first in Beijing, then ChengduFan Yafeng is my brother, also my elder
He has made me to kneel down in his home
To say the Sinner’s prayer for the last time

Yang Maodong is my friend, too
Though many thought I was his enemy
His lawyer, Sui Muqing, has come to the church twice
And has shaken my hand twice. When I heard he was taken away
My hand suddenly felt warm

Ran Yunfei is my old friendPu Zhiqiang is my friend, too
When one friend is in prison, I call the another
Then Xia Lin also went to prison
We drank together once—of course I drank tea instead
Prisoners appreciate each other
So friends of friends also become friends

Oh, I have so many friendsGuo Yushan and I spent an afternoon talking in my studyXiao Shu was in my living room, but left before he’d warmed his seatWang Qingying came to Chengdu many years ago, and knocked on my doorZheng Enchong I haven’t met once
But his wife just came to Bible study at my home

Tan Zuoren is a dear friend
I remember when we first drank tea by a river—he said
You be careful, whatever you do don’t go to prison
Who would know that he would be the one to go

There are others who I must first befriend
Before I have the chance to really know them
Like Shi Tao, like Yang Zili
There are some other dear friends, who I can only visit overseas
Like Brother Yu Jie in the United States
And Brother Teng Biao in Hong Kong

And my friend Li Bifeng, he even asked someone
To bring a note out to me
Asking me to help his son stay in Canada, to never come back
And my brother Wang Bingzhang. I went together with his daughter
To Washington, D.C., to the Senate
And Yang Tianshui, and Xu Wanping
And Huang Qi, whose wife was baptized in the church
And Yan Wenhan. Before he got involved in the Chain Incident
He was a catechism student at the Early Rain Church.

Oh, I have so many friends
Mostly from Beijing, then from Chengdu, thirdly from Guangdong
Oh, I have so many friends
Mostly men, leaving their wives and children behind
Oh, I have so many friends
It won’t make a big difference with or without me

Oh, I have so many friends
But I’m not ashamed, I’m proud
Oh, I have so many friends
All convicts, not a single scholar
Oh, I have so many friends
What should I be afraid of? If God sends me to prison,
There’ll always be someone saying, “Wang Yi is my friend,”
“Wang Yi is my brother,”
“We’ll pray for him. We’ll take care of his wife and kids.”

July 13, 2015, in the dark of the night, thinking of my friends. [Chinese]